Bush at the UN

Bush's Remarks Draw Skepticism
By FELICITY BARRINGER


NITED NATIONS, Sept. 23 — President Bush's urging that "all nations of good will" should support the reconstruction and political transformation of Iraq met today with a largely skeptical response, laced with some general expressions of approval, in both the General Assembly and in capitals around the world.

By the rough measurement of applause, the appeal of Mr. Bush's remarks fell well behind those of President Jacques Chirac of France, his chief rival for hearts and minds in the arena of international diplomacy. In his speech, Mr. Chirac declared that multilateralism "is a guarantee of legitimacy and democracy, especially in matters regarding the use of force or laying down universal norms."

In remarks to a Russian television correspondent after the morning session, Moscow's foreign minister, Igor S. Ivanov, chose not to criticize Mr. Bush directly, falling back instead on a general endorsement of multilateralism. "Every country, small and large, should strictly respect international law," he said. "Only in this way can we tackle such problems as terrorism, organized crime and nonproliferation."

President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan said Mr. Bush's speech "was good, very forceful," adding: "It encompassed all the issues that face the world today. It was a very balanced speech." But he remained noncommittal about whether Pakistan could aid the effort in Iraq unless its troops could be part of a Muslim force that was invited to help by Iraqis themselves.

Most diplomats and scholars focused on Mr. Bush's unapologetic tone on the subject of the war in Iraq. A United Nations official, speaking on condition that he not be identified, said he thought the president's remarks were tailored "for a domestic audience," because they seemed not to have much resonance among the representatives of 191 nations gathered here for the annual General Assembly.

In her speech this afternoon, President Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, said: "The war has created far many more problems than those it intended to solve. I do believe that a great many lessons can be learned from the Iraq war" — in particular, that unilateralism carries heavy costs.

Some commentators around the world thought the target audience for the Bush speech might have been leaders of nations from which Washington is seeking money or troops.

Prof. Ernst-Otto Czempiel, a leading foreign policy expert at Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt, said that given Mr. Bush's tough tone, and the gulf between Europe and the United States, the main targets of today's speech might not have been Mr. Chirac or the German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, but leaders of other nations that might offer support in Iraq, like Turkey or India.

He added that Mr. Bush's message, as he read it, was: "Allies should give some help, but should not expect to co-determine the future of Iraq."

In effect, Professor Czempiel said, the speech could be seen as a barometer of Mr. Bush's problems in Iraq. "The situation is not so desperate that he needs to make any concessions now," he said. But, he added: "The situation in Iraq is likely to deteriorate further, with more guerrilla fighting and U.S. casualties. If this happens, Bush will be forced to make some concessions."

Guillaume Parmentier, director of the French Center on the United States at the French Institute for International Relations, called Mr. Bush's speech disappointing, adding: "The president seemed to say a few nice things about the U.N., the idea that the differences during the war should be placed behind us, but on the other hand, didn't seem to be willing to give very much on the authority of who will determine the future of Iraq. Nor did he say anything about the responsibility of the United States for the security of Iraq which under international law is clearly the responsibility of the occupying power."

Several people commented on the contrast between Mr. Bush's remarks and those of Secretary General Kofi Annan, who preceded him, and Mr. Chirac, who followed.

Mr. Annan, in a sharp rebuke of the United States' pursuit of war without an explicit Security Council mandate, said the doctrine of pre-emptive action "could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification."

Menzies Campbell, the foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrat Party in Britain, a party that has been critical of Britain's going to war, said the speech would do little to convince skeptics in Europe that they had enough of a stake in Iraq to help out the Anglo-American coalition.

"From the reaction of the U.N. General Assembly," Mr. Campbell said, "President Bush is going to have to go a long way further before he can persuade France and Germany and other countries who were skeptical about the war in Iraq to now take a serious hand in its reconstruction.

"Kofi Annan's carefully chosen words contained a rebuke of unilateralism and pre-emptive strikes," he added, "and there clearly is a great deal to be done in New York before it can be said that the U.N. has overcome the strains of the last 12 months."

Jean Chrétien, the Canadian prime minister, struck a more conciliatory note at a news conference here this afternoon, saying that despite the significant differences between Washington and Paris, "This is a matter of knowing that there are ways to provide an acceptable solution. Reason will prevail."


link

 

How does Bush expect to get international support if he keeps dropping his drawers and dumping on every other country? What is he, 10?

 

It was a joke. Basically the same speech he gave a year ago. We don't care what you think but it's your responsibility to help fix the mess we've created.

 

What is he, 10?

No, he is the LEADER of the free world. Now, don't you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Bush and his Admin do not have a clue about diplomacy (or foreign policy for that matter). Bush appears to want to dictate the terms of all international Iraqi aid, no negotiations or compromises on his part. And I bet that he will be surprised when the French and Germans let the US go it alone for another year. What a clown!

 

Can anyone post the whole speech? It wasn't that long. Read it online yesterday, but can't find it now.

 

Thanks, MC Mark.

 

"Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: between those who seek order, and those who spread chaos; between those who work for peaceful change, and those who adopt the methods of gangsters."


This part here is simply hilarious.

 

From The Onion:

U.S. Invades Non-Oil-Rich Nation To Dispel Criticism
LUXEMBOURG VILLE, LUXEMBOURG—In an effort to quiet criticism of U.S. military policy, 50,000 U.S. troops invaded and soundly defeated the non-oil-rich Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Monday.

"Once again, the U.S. claims victory over a rogue nation," said President Bush after the 45-minute war. "The people of Luxembourg, although prosperous and living in peace, have suffered under the tyranny of a monarchy for centuries. And allow me to point out that Luxembourg has not one drop of crude oil." Troops will return home Friday, following the public hanging of Grand Duke Henri de Luxembourg.

 

I thought I would deconstruct Bush' speech.


... 24 months ago--and yesterday in the memory of America -- the center of New York City became a battlefield .... Since that day, terrorists have struck in Bali, in Mombasa, in Casablanca,

Last month, terrorists brought their war to the United Nations itself.
************
WHAT HE MEANT:
Remember 9/11, and how you supported us then? Be angry and scared, because the UN was attacked, too. It could have been you. Maybe the terrorist might bomb us at this moment as we sit here..Big George will protect you if you behave.

Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: between those who seek order and those who spread chaos; between those who work for peaceful change and those

***********
WHAT HE MEANT:
Wit us or agin us again. Doesn't play as well the second time, but the ditto heads still love it.
**********

The Taliban was a sponsor and servant of terrorism. When confronted, that regime chose defiance, and that regime is no more.

The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder and refused to account for them when confronted by the world.

*********
COMMENT;

Same old . Same old. Doesn't he realze what happens when you credibility is shot?

Across Iraq, life is being improved by liberty. Across the Middle East, people are safer because an unstable aggressor has been removed from power. Across the world, nations are more secure because an ally of terror has fallen.
********
WHAT HE MEANT:
Admitted War Reason No 2. We love the Iraqis and freedom. Don't you idiots remember we called it Operation Iraqi Freedom? See above re credibility.

I also recognize that some of the sovereign nations of this assembly disagreed with our actions. Yet there was and there remains unity among us on the fundamental principles and objectives of the United Nations.

We are dedicated to the defense of our collective security and to the advance of human rights. These permanent commitments call us to great work in the world; work we must do together.

*********
WHAT HE MEANT:
We do what we want, when we want, but we believe in the UN as long as YOU do what we want.

The United Nations has been a friend of the Afghan people, distributing food and medicine, helping refugees return home, advising on a new constitution, and helping to prepare the way for nationwide elections.

NATO has taken over the U.N.-mandated security force in Kabul. American and coalition forces continue to track and defeat Al Qaida terrorists and remnants of the Taliban.
**********
WHAT HE MEANT:
Good UN, good boy. See isn' that nice if you behave?

Our efforts to rebuild that country go on. I have recently proposed to spend an additional $1.2 billion dollars for the Afghan reconstruction effort, and I urge other nations to continue contributing to this important cause.
****
WHAT HE MEANT:
Hey. Togo, I bet you think that is some real scratch. You, too back in Mississippi.


By the end of 2004, more than 90 percent of Iraqi children under age 5 will have been immunized ... Iraq's food distribution system is operational, delivering nearly a half million tons of food per month, thanks to the skill and expertise of the World Food Programme.
*****
WHAT HE MEANT:
Hey I' a compassionate conservative. Hey if we keep this up we'll eventually get back to the Iraqi public health stats prior to when we took out their public health infrastructure and sanctioned them for years.

We are interviewing Iraqi citizens and analyzing records of the old regime to reveal the full extent of its weapons programs
**********
WHAT HE MEANT:
Hey, are you really sure we can't find some wmd?

And I have proposed to Congress that the United States provide additional funding for our work in Iraq, the greatest financial commitment of its kind since the Marshall Plan.
*******
WHAT HE MEANT:
Please give us some $$$. We can't afford more.

The primary goal of our coalition in Iraq is self-government for the people of Iraq, reached by orderly and democratic process.

This process must unfold according to the needs of Iraqis, neither hurried nor delayed by the wishes of other parties.
************
WHAT HE MEANT:
No need for you at the UN or France or other outsiders, unlike the us in the USA, who are practically natives of Iraq to decide when the time for Iraqi self government government comes

Iraq now has a governing council; the first truly representative institution in that country.
*********
WHAT HE MEANT:
We picked them so we know they are representative of our interests.

Yet every young democracy needs the help of friends.
*********
WHAT HE MEANT:
If you don't give us money you hate democracy.

And a transformed Middle East would benefit the entire world by undermining the ideologies that export violence to other lands.
**********
WHAT HE MEANT:
I, too, am a neocon. You know the whiteman's burden and all.


The advance of democratic institutions in Iraq is setting an example that others,
******
WHAT HE MEANT:
Note I said "democratic institutions". Those Iraqis are just too irresponsible to have democracy till we learn them on it.

The Palestinian people deserve their own state and they will gain that state by embracing new leaders committed to reform, to fighting terror and to building peace.
*****
WHAT HE MEANT:
Once the Palestinians do our bidding than we won't have to vetoe UN resolutions with regard to Palestine. Won't that make you happy?

Israel must work to create the conditions that will allow a peaceful Palestinian state
************
WHAT HE MEANT:
See we're even handed despite the 133 to 4 UN voter against us and Israel, two days ago.

Outlaw regimes that possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the means to deliver them would be able to use blackmail and create chaos in entire regions.
*******
WHAT HE MEANT:
I never lied about wmd.

Nations of the world must have the wisdom and the will to stop grave threats before they arrive.
*******
WHAT HE MEANT:
Premeptive wars are good for the world.

For more than a decade, the United States has worked with Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union to dismantle, destroy or secure weapons and dangerous materials left over from another era..... We are determined to keep the world's most destructive weapons away from all our shores and out of the hands of our common enemies.
************
WHAT HE MEANT:
Be scared real scared. See I really am a peaceful guy, just trying to protect you poor ninnies.


The United States has begun to carry out the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, ...My country is acting to save lives from famine as well, providing more than $1.4 billion in global emergency food aid...

Each year an estimated 800,000 to 900,000 human beings are bought, sold...
The victims of sex trade see little of life before they see the very worst of life: ...
The PROTECT Act, which I signed into law this year, makes it a crime for any person to enter the United States or for any citizen to travel abroad for the purpose of sex tourism involving children.
*********
WHAT HE MEANT:
We might kill lots of Iraqi and Afghan children but didn't you hear me when I said "no child left behind. Besides Rhove told me to act compassionate after I told you UN suckers to take a hike.

Helping Afghanistan and Iraq to succeed as free nations in a transformed region, cutting off the avenues of proliferation, abolishing modern forms of slavery, these are the kinds of great tasks for which the United Nations was founded. ....As an original signer of the U.N. Charter, the United States of America is committed to the United Nations. ...
The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding documents of America stand in the same tradition.
********
WHAT HE MEANT:
You idiots let me tell you the purpose of the UN. We might have to abolish it if you can't understand.

Both recognize a moral law that stands above men and nations
********
WHAT HE MEANT:
That is why I ignored the Pope and most of the world's religious leaders. Oh well ignore that.

May God bless you all.
*******
WHAT HE MEANT:
I might have ignored the consensus of the world's religions on my Iraq War, but see how religious I am. Hey Evangelical base back in the Southern US, did you hear me lecturing the godless UN about the Word?

 

Administration stuck in an infinite loop
Josh Marshall, The Hill

Indulge me in a pop culture reference.

Remember that big tin robot in those early-‘60s sci-fi films? Remember how at the end of every movie there’d come a point where the hero would outwit the robot or set him on some problem he couldn’t solve and the robot would slip into a feedback loop and smoke would start coming out of his ears?

The White House is the robot.

How else to explain President Bush’s defiant speech to the U.N. General Assembly and all the recent zigs and zags about bringing in the United Nations?

People disagree over how much we should involve our allies or the United Nations in our various military and diplomatic forays abroad. But we’re beyond that now. It’s no longer a matter of which approach is better. The problem is that the White House seems incapable of choosing one over the other and now oscillates back and forth between the two on an almost weekly basis.

For the past six weeks we’ve watched the same sobering pattern recur again and again.

First, some major setback occurs in Baghdad. Next, the White House reacts with a newfound desire to broaden its coalition by bringing in the United Nations and our allies.

When the crunch comes, however, the White House can’t bring itself to make the hard decisions necessary to change the dynamic in Iraq or the United Nations. So everything falls back to the status quo ante until the next bomb blows up in Baghdad.

Round one began Aug. 19, when that truck bomb ripped apart the U.N. compound in Baghdad. In the aftermath, the White House signaled a desire to build on the tragedy as a moment of unity to bring the world community together to cooperate in rebuilding Iraq. But when Colin Powell came to the United Nations, he brought the same resolution that had been a non-starter a short time before. Soon enough, it was clear nothing would change.

Round two started 10 days later, Aug. 29, when another bomb blew up part of the Imam Ali Mosque, killing the influential Shiite cleric Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al Hakim. Other bad news at home followed quickly on the tragedy in Najaf. The Congressional Budget Office reported that the United States could maintain its current troop commitment in Iraq only through next spring.

The cost of the occupation continued to rise and the president’s poll numbers began to slip.

Finally, on Sept. 4, The Washington Post reported that Powell had made common cause with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to persuade a “reluctant White House” that the current plan simply wasn’t working and that a new U.N. resolution was essential.

Again the White House signaled a newfound willingness to share the burdens and authority for rebuilding Iraq. But when the president spoke to the nation Sept. 7, his request for $87 billion was accompanied only by a few churlish remarks about U.N. responsibility for picking up the tab for Iraqi reconstruction.

According to all available polling data, the president’s speech did not arrest his slide in the polls but accelerated it. And the response from abroad was predictably negative, so the $50 to $75 billion in unfunded reconstruction costs for Iraq, those in addition to the $87 billion, seem destined to come out of American pockets, too.

Last year, many in the administration genuinely did not care what the United Nations or the rest of the world thought about our venture into Iraq. But today, the White House pretty clearly wants some outside infusion of support. And yet the president cannot seem to muster more than insults and threats about U.N. irrelevancy when he speaks to the General Assembly.

Before the speech, when Fox News Channel’s Brit Hume asked the president whether he was willing to cede some political control to the United Nations in exchange for foreign assistance, Bush replied, “I’m not so sure we have to, for starters.”

What’s going on here?

While some see an effort to pick a new fight or simply drive a very hard bargain, the truth isn’t as grand or deliberate. This is more basic psychology than clever strategy.

Many of us are familiar with the five stages of grieving identified three decades ago by the psychiatrist Elisabeth Kubler Ross. As individuals face death or any great loss they go through five stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

Those stages apply to the demise of major policy initiatives as well and we’re watching that happen now as the White House comes to grips with the collapse of its policy on Iraq.

The administration keeps seeing what the problem is but cannot bring itself to take the cure.

It’s stuck. It cannot get past stages one (denial) and two (anger). And the clock is ticking.

 

This from Newsweek/MSNBC, admitedly a notorious bastion of left-wing propoganda...*cough*



Bush's UN Address Fails To Impress


Short on Friends
Newsweek.MSNBC.com


One year ago, George W. Bush stood in front of the green-marble podium inside the United Nations to issue a stark challenge to the rest of the world. Iraq, he said, was a mortal threat to the U.N. and to peace. "All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment," he warned. "Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"

BY MOST MEASURES, the U.N. flunked the Bush test. The Security Council spoke of serious consequences, but refused to support the war. In the president's terms, the U.N. was now irrelevant.
Yet there was President Bush again on Tuesday, standing by the same green marble. On the sidelines, his diplomats were pressing for U.N. help to rebuild Iraq while Bush made his own case. Rather than irrelevent, the United Nations he described in his speech is doing "vital and effective work" in Iraq. According to the president, the U.N. is now even united about its "fundamental principles" including global security and human rights. "So let us move forward," he urged.

Maybe the president missed the speeches delivered before he reached the podium. But they hardly sounded as if the United Nations and the Bush administration agree at all about those fundamental principles, or, for that matter, about world security.

The day began with Kofi Annan, the U.N.'s secretary general, launching an unusually aggressive attack on the very basis for going to war in Iraq--and the Bush administration's foreign policy in general. Without mentioning Iraq or the United States by name, Annan condemned the notion of pre-emptive strikes, saying they could lead to "the unilateral and lawless use of force."

"This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years," he warned.

Last year Bush said Iraq was the main threat to the U.N. and to peace. This year Annan said Bush's policy was a threat to the U.N. and to peace. For a U.N. that remains traumatized by terrorist attacks in Baghdad, that was hardly a rallying cry to help the U.S. in Iraq. So much for unity on fundamental principles.

President Lula da Silva of Brazil--fresh from his triumph in sinking the world trade talks in Cancun--followed by echoing the French position about Iraq's reconstruction. He demanded "a central role" for the United Nations and transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis "as soon as possible." He continued: "A war can perhaps be won single-handedly. But peace--lasting peace--cannot be secured without the support of all."

Then there was French President Jacques Chirac. A couple of weeks ago, State Department officials thought they had a strategy to isolate France inside the U.N. over its proposals to reshape Iraq. Instead, Chirac on Tuesday looked and sounded as if were leading mainstream opinion at the U.N.. Speaking to reporters after a private session with Bush, Chirac was in no mood to compromise. He said that Iraqis would not "accept a situation which is an occupation of their country" and predicted "a further deterioration of the situation" in Iraq.
Even America's closest allies are moving a very long way from Washington. Bush hailed José Maria Aznar of Spain on Tuesday as his "steadfast friend". Yet Aznar was in Libya last week, cozying up to Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader many U.S. officials believe is pursuing weapons of mass destruction and maintaining his ties to terrorist groups. And Tony Blair, the British prime minister, was a no-show at the United Nations (in contrast to his European counterparts) at the very moment when his friend George W. Bush was appealing for the world's help in Iraq.

Bush's day at the United Nations could have been worse. The French have ruled out vetoing the latest American resolution on Iraq. Relations between Washington and Berlin have warmed up markedly. And there will be some small contributions of troops and cash in Iraq, even if they are nowhere near enough to make much of a difference on the ground.

Yet these are tiny gains at a time when the United States is engaged in the monumental tasks of fighting international terrorism, recreating Iraq in its own image, and transforming the entire Middle East.

Before the war in Iraq, it became something of a cliché to warn that the United States could win the war and lose the peace. In fact the reality at the United Nations this week is that the Bush administration has won the war and lost much of the rest of the world. With enough time, money and bloodshed, the United States will bring peace to Iraq. But it remains a long, long way from winning back its friends and allies in the international community.




© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.

MSNBC Terms, Conditions and Privacy ©2003

 

The diplomatic team for the Bush administration will all get 'F's'. With the 25th anniversary of the Camp David agreements between Israel and Egypt, and watching and reading a lot about those involved in it, I was amazed at the sharp contrast.

That was amazing diplomacy. Egypt and Israel had had 4 wars in a 25 year period. Both sides were brought together, and not one word of the treaty has ever been broken since then. Carter, and various members of his cabinet as well as the members who were there for the Israelis, and Egyptians got together to talk about the process about a week ago. They all seemed proud, because they knew they had done something good for both countries. Carter was heavily involved, had the intelligence and desire to handle the details and mediate between the two. He worked with both sides, knowing that Begin was very concerned about every detail and word involved, while Sadat was only concerned with broader more general principles and let the others decide the details. Carter understood both leaders style of negotiation and went from one to the other, keeping the two leaders away from each other to prevent flare-ups. The whole white house team was working towards this peaceful settlement, and devising strategies to get the peace to work. In the end they came out with an agreement, and it's held fast for 25 years. It was a remarkable acheivement, and shows what can happen when skilled diplomats who have a genuine desire go to work in a diplomatic way.

Contrast that with Bush at the UN, playing like a cowboy, making meaningless 'tough-talk' speeches that don't end up helping us build a coalition or bring relief to our troops in the field, or aid to country trying to start over. It's kind of sad that diplomacy is such a weak point for these guys.